Nothing NEW re: attacks on Iraq prior to 2003. Here are 2002 Headlines

[Dover]

I'm just amazed that so many, particularly here at DU, are so surprised about some of the stories coming to light now that are evidence of pre-existing plans to invade Iraq....most recently that of air attacks on Iraq throughout 2002.
There were several articles placed in various (mainly foreign) news sources about the "strategic attacks" perpetrated on Iraq throughout 2002...suspected as being an attempt to provoke a response from Iraq in order to justify a full fledged American invasion.

And just today, I have been hearing reports from American "intelligence" that al Zarqawi, bin Laden and other alQaeda members are now taking refuge in Iran. Gee, I guess the U.S. will just HAVE to go in and get them. Again...the signs are all there for us to see.
_______________________________________________________________

Mon, Aug 19, 2002, 6:28pm (CDT+1)
CNN Breaking News

White House considering attack on suspected al Qaeda chemical and biological weapons test facility in Iraq, U.S. officials tell CNN. Details soon. For the latest news, watch CNN or log on to <http://CNN.com>;

This was an email breaking news alert. Link says no attack imminent:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/19/iraq.covertplan/index.html


_______________________________________________________________

8/17/02

Western Planes Raid Southern Iraq


U.S. and British jet fighters bombed targets in southern Iraq on Saturday in the second raid this week, the Iraqi Air Force Command said. It said in a statement the planes struck civilian and public buildings in Dhi-Qar province, 250 miles south of Baghdad.

Iraqi air defenses fired at the attacking planes, forcing them to return to bases in Kuwait, it said.

The U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for American military operations in the Gulf region, said U.S. and British aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone "used precision-guided weapons today to target a mobile radar unit in southern Iraq at approximately 6:30 a.m. EDT."

"Coalition strikes in the no-fly zones are executed as a self-defense measure in response to Iraqi hostile threats and acts against coalition forces and their aircraft," the statement said.

cont'd

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=584&ncid=584&e=7&u=/nm/20020817/pl_nm/iraq_usa_raid_dc_5

______________________________________________________________

Air-attack begun in Iraq!

100 jets join attack on Iraq
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 06/09/2002)

About 100 American and British aircraft took part in an attack on Iraq's major western air defence installation yesterday in the biggest single operation over the country for four years.
The raid appeared to be a prelude to the type of special forces operations that would have to begin weeks before a possible American-led war. It was launched two days before a war summit between President George W Bush and Tony Blair in America.

Full story at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/06/wirq06.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/09/06/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=32726
_____________________________________________________________


U.S. Navy Retracts Denial of Arms Shipment to Gulf

The U.S. Navy ( news - web sites) confirmed on Tuesday it was seeking a large ship to carry helicopters and arms from the United States to the Red Sea, a day after denying it had placed such an order.
The request, following a recent order for a vessel to carry military hardware from Europe to the Middle East, has heightened speculation that the United States is pre-positioning equipment for a possible strike on Iraq.

Monday a U.S. Navy spokesman denied a Reuters report that Military Sealift Command (MSC) had placed the order, but when presented with documentary evidence, MSC spokeswoman Trish Larson confirmed Tuesday there had indeed been a tender.

"There is a request for proposals from private industry to provide a roll-on roll-off ship," she told Reuters.

more..................

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=584&ncid=584&e=9&u=/nm/20020813/pl_nm/usa_mideast_shipping_dc_2

______________________________________________________________

The Pentagon Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks
by CHRIS FLOYD

This age: layers of lime harden in the sick son's blood... There's nowhere to run from the tyrant-epoch... Who else will you kill? Who else glorify? What other lies will you invent?

Osip Mandelshtam,
"1 January 1924"

This column stands foursquare with the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, when he warns that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. We know, as does the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, that this statement is an incontrovertible fact, a matter of scientific certainty. And how can we and the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, be so sure that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large?

Because these attacks will be instigated at the order of the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense.

This astonishing admission was buried deep in a story which was itself submerged by mounds of gray newsprint and glossy underwear ads in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times. There--in an article by military analyst William Arkin, detailing the vast expansion of the secret armies being massed by the former Nixon bureaucrat now lording it over the Pentagon--came the revelation of Rumsfeld's plan to create "a super-Intelligence Support Activity" that will "bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception."

According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization--the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)"--will carry out secret missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose them to "counterattack" by U.S. forces.

In other words--and let's say this plainly, clearly and soberly, so that no one can mistake the intention of Rumsfeld's plan--the United States government is planning to use "cover and deception" and secret military operations to provoke murderous terrorist attacks on innocent people. Let's say it again: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the other members of the unelected regime in Washington plan to deliberately foment the murder of innocent people--your family, your friends, your lovers, you--in order to further their geopolitical ambitions.

For P2OG is not designed solely to flush out terrorists and bring them to justice--a laudable goal in itself, although the Rumsfeld way of combating terrorism by causing it is pure moral lunacy. (Or should we use the Regime's own preferred terminology and just call it "evil"?) No, it seems the Pee-Twos have bigger fish to fry. Once they have sparked terrorists into action--by killing their family members? luring them with loot? fueling them with drugs? plying them with jihad propaganda? messing with their mamas? or with agents provocateurs, perhaps, who infiltrate groups then plan and direct the attacks themselves?--they can then take measures against the "states/sub-state actors accountable" for "harboring" the Rumsfeld-roused gangs. What kind of measures exactly? Well, the classified Pentagon program puts it this way: "Their sovereignty will be at risk."

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd1101.html

_______________________________________________________________


BP chief fears US will carve up Iraqi oil riches

Lord Browne, chief executive of BP and one of New Labour's favourite
industrialists, has warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil
companies in the aftermath of any future war.
The comments from the most senior European oil executive, who has impeccable
political connections in the UK, will be seen by anti-war protesters as
further proof that US president George Bush has already made his mind up
about an early attack.

They will also serve to underline concern that the US is primarily concerned
with seizing control of Saddam Hussein's oil and handing it over to
companies such as ExxonMobil rather than destroying his weapons of mass
destruction.

Britain's biggest company is reviewing what impact a regime change in
Baghdad would have on its own business and global crude supplies.>>

more....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,822224,00.html

_________________________________________________________________

Trading With the Enemy

U.S. Refiners Reportedly Buying Most of Iraq's Oil

By John K. Cooley

July 20 — Even as Saddam Hussein vows to use his country's oil as a weapon in the Middle East conflict, American companies are buying most of Iraq's U.N.-approved oil exports, oil industry sources tell ABCNEWS.com >>>

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq010720_cooley.html

1. 90% of iraq oil goes to USA (less sulphur, therefore easier to refine)

2. The russian companies have the function as in-between dealer on provision.

3. The recipients are Rockefeller companies like Chevron, Exxon-Mobile, Bayoil and Koch Petroleum (many of them are represented by Henry Kissinger, who just "criticised" the war against Iraq as well)

___________________________________________________________________


Milli Gazette: An American conspiracy in northern Iraq
Iraq-USA, Politics, 9/24/2002

The Turkish daily Milli Gazette said on Monday that a frightening American conspiracy has been made in northern Turkey, noting that the American intelligence system asked its elements working in northern Iraq to organize terrorism operations in several areas of the world countries with the aim of using these incident in the interest of Washington, and then to accuse the Iraqi authorities that it is the one supporting terrorism."

The paper added that Washington will be able to build support and legitimacy to organize military operations against Baghdad, and that Washington will not deeply investigate the issue of military operation and will obstruct the process of searching for those who actually did the operation. The paper indicated that the American administration promised its hirelings to provide facilities in offering asylum to the Iraqis who fled from northern Iraq to the USA and the European states.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020924/2002092410.html

_________________________________________________________________

Italy: Action against Iraq possible in January

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi met President George W. Bush Saturday and predicted afterward that action might be taken against Iraq in early 2003 if Baghdad continued to bar U.N. arms inspectors. It was the clearest indication yet from a world leader on the timetable for any move against Baghdad, but Berlusconi said he was sure Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would eventually bow to United Nations' demands rather than face attack.
"However, if I should be proved wrong tomorrow and Iraq does not comply with the U.N. ... then I think one can think in terms of (action) in January or February," Berlusconi told a news conference following his meeting with Bush at Camp David.
"You need time for any action. Nothing can be improvised in this sort of field," he said. Although he declined to discuss what precise steps might be taken against Saddam, Berlusconi said it was clear the United States was ready to use force.

more…
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/ns/story.jsp?floc=FF-PLS-PLS&id=405246542&dt=20020914195700&w=RTR&coview=



________________________________________________________________

The conspiracy theory that wouldn't die.

Did a shadowy group of American diplomats threaten the Taliban last year,
provoking the 9/11 attack? Many on the left think so. Now the diplomats tell
their side of the story.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Damien Cave


Aug. 15, 2002 | In July 2001, a group of retired diplomats from the United
States, Iran, Pakistan and Russia gathered in Berlin to discuss the future
of Afghanistan. It was one of several brainstorming sessions about that
troubled country sponsored by the United Nations last year. During the days,
the men met in tony hotel conference rooms. At night, they shared drinks or
dinner. And during every discussion, the diplomats focused on the Taliban --
how to make the radical Muslim group form a broad-based government and give
up Osama bin Laden, who was suspected of masterminding several terrorist
attacks.

These facts about the Berlin meeting are not in dispute. Everything else is.
The question of exactly what was said in Berlin and how it was translated to
the Taliban has become the centerpiece of a vast dispute about the Bush
administration, Osama bin Laden and the buildup to the Sept. 11 attacks. On
the left, it has become an article of faith for many that the U.N.-sponsored
meetings were part of a concerted Bush administration effort to push for an
oil-and-gas pipeline through Afghanistan. When the talks fell apart, it's
been alleged, the administration used the diplomats to issue a military
threat, which was carried back to the Taliban. Bin Laden, the theory goes,
then decided to strike first, making the Sept. 11 attacks not a random act
of terrorist violence, but rather a preemptive strike -- a calculated
response to the Bush administration's love of oil, and its irresponsible
saber-rattling in pursuit of it.

That tangled theory mostly hinges on one source: Niaz Naik,a member of the
Pakistani delegation to the U.N. talks, who told the British press two weeks
after Sept. 11 that the United States had issued a military threat at the
meetings. He told the same story to several French reporters in the
following months. In Naik's early telling, Tom Simons -- a U.S. delegate at
the meetings and former ambassador to Pakistan -- issued a noteworthy
ultimatum: "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you
under a carpet of bombs." >>>


Link:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/08/15/forbidden_truth/index.html



_______________________________________________________________

JULY 27, 2000

FLASHBACK: TIMEWARNER HEAD LEVIN WARNS OF 'AMERICAN CULTURAL IMPERIALISM';
SEES CORPORATIONS TAKING 'GOVERNMENT ROLES'

AOL chief executive Steve Case and TIME WARNER chief executive Gerald Levin
testified Thursday before a complete panel at the Federal Communications
Commission.

But candid comments made by Levin earlier this year during a media
roundtable have some lawmakers in Congress concerned that something is foul
with the latest greatest media marriage.

Levin recently warned: In the post-Cold War era there is only "American
cultural imperialism."

"There's no countervailing force, that's a significant problem," declared
the man who will become the most powerful media executive in history if the
AOL/TIME WARNER merger is approved by federal regulators.

Levin sees a future where major media corporations take on responsibilities
currently administered by governments.

"We're going to need to have these corporations redefined as instruments of
public service because they have the resources, they have the reach, they
have the skill base, and maybe there's a new generation coming up that wants
to achieve meaning in that context and have an impact, and that may be a
more efficient way to deal with society's problems than governments,"
predicted Levin.

A summary of Levin's past comments were circulated behind committee doors
this week, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including Levin's belief that an
"old-fashioned regulatory system" has to give way to a new "global concern."

"It does appear that Mr. Levin has greater designs than simply running an
entertainment conglomerate," said one Republican lawmaker who would like to
question Levin on his feelings about "American cultural imperialism."

At the TIMEWARNER Global Forum gathering in Shanghai last year, Levin
introduced Communist China's President Jiang Zemin, calling him "my good
friend."

Levin presented him with a bust of Abraham Lincoln.

Levin, who refused to meet with human rights representatives during the
trip, told vaunted visitors that Jiang can reel off the Gettysburg address
from memory.
__________________________________________________________________



WHITE HOUSE GAME SHOW: MURDOCH NET PLANS 'AMERICAN CANDIDATE'; WINNER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT '04

Move over American Idol. Here comes American President:

A Rupert Murdoch TV game show that may choose the outcome of the next White House race!


Cable channel FX is set to mount an ambitious two-year endeavor that will culminate in the American public voting on -- a "people's candidate" to run for president of the United States in 2004!

100 candidates will start the series.

During subsequent episodes, candidates will square off in numerous competitions, like debates.

The number of semifinalists will be whittled down each week, based on live audience response and telephone/Internet voting.

Each episode will originate from all-American locales such as Mount Rushmore or the Statue of Liberty.

But the final episode of the series will be an "American Candidate" convention, held live on the National Mall in Washington around July 4, 2004!

Viewers will determine the winning candidate from among three finalists.

The series will be seeking "the Jesse Venturas of the world, finding messages people want to hear," added Kevin Reilly, FX's president of entertainment. "Hopefully, we'll find some very qualified civil servant who lacks a power base and maybe also a plumber from Detroit who (tells) it like it is." ..>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/2255546.stm

-----------------------------------------------------------

[RBHam]

1. Too many people are still in deep denial...

But they're waking up.